In this quest, I know that we must not lack patience.

I know that in a world divided, such as ours today, salvation cannot be attained by one dramatic act.

I know that many steps will have to be taken over many months before the world can look at itself one day and truly realize that a new climate of mutually peaceful confidence is abroad in the world.

But I know, above all else, that we must start to take these steps-NOW.

The United States and its allies, Great Britain and France, have over the past months tried to take some of these steps. Let no one say that we shun the conference table.

On the record has long stood the request of the United States, Great Britain, and France to negotiate with the Soviet Union the problems of a divided Germany.

On that record has long stood the request of the same three nations to negotiate an Austrian State Treaty.

On the same record still stands the request of the United Nations to negotiate the problems of Korea.

Most recently, we have received from the Soviet Union what is in effect an expression of willingness to hold a Four Power Meeting. Along with our allies, Great Britain and France, we were pleased to see that this note did not contain the unacceptable pre-conditions previously put forward.

As you already know from our joint Bermuda communique, the United States, Great Britain, and France have agreed promptly to meet with the Soviet Union.

The Government of the United States approaches this conference with hopeful sincerity. We will bend every effort of our minds to the single purpose of emerging from that conference with tangible results toward peace the only true way of lessening international tension.

We never have, we never will, propose or suggest that the Soviet Union surrender what is rightfully theirs.

We will never say that the peoples of Russia are an enemy with whom we have no desire ever to deal or mingle in friendly and fruitful relationship.

On the contrary, we hope that this Conference may initiate a relationship with the Soviet Union which will eventually bring about a free intermingling of the peoples of the East and of the West-the one sure, human way of developing the understand

ing required for confident and peaceful relations.

Instead of the discontent which is now settling upon Eastern Germany, occupied Austria, and the countries of Eastern Europe, we seek a harmonious family of free European nations, with none a threat to the other, and least of all a threat to the peoples of Russia.

Beyond the turmoil and strife and misery of Asia, we seek peaceful opportunity for these peoples to develop their natural resources and to elevate their lives.

These are not idle words or shallow visions. Behind them lies a story of nations lately come to independence, not as a result of war, but through free grant or peaceful negotiation. There is a record, already written, of assistance gladly given by nations of the West to needy peoples, and to those suffering the temporary effects of famine, drought, and natural disaster.

These are deeds of peace. They speak more loudly than promises or protestations of peaceful intent.

For the Benefit of Mankind

But I do not wish to rest either upon the reiteration of past proposals or the restatement of past deeds. The gravity of the time is such that every new avenue of peace, no matter how dimly discernible, should be explored.

There is at least one new avenue of peace which has not yet been well explored-an avenue now laid out by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

In its resolution of November 28th, 1953, this General Assembly suggested-and I quote "that the Disarmament Commission study the desirability of establishing a subcommittee consisting of representatives of the Powers principally involved, which should seek in private an acceptable solution . . . and report on such a solution to the General Assembly and to the Security Council not later than 1 September 1954."

The United States, heeding the suggestion of the General Assembly of the United Nations, is instantly prepared to meet privately with such other countries as may be "principally involved," to seek “an acceptable solution" to the atomic armaments race which overshadows not only the peace, but the very life, of the world.

The United States would seek more than the mere reduction or elimination of atomic materials for military purposes.

It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.

The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military buildup can be reversed, this greatest of destructive. forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind.

The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. That capability, already proved, is here now-today. Who can doubt, if the entire body of the world's scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas, that this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient, and economic usage.

To hasten the day when fear of the atom will begin to disappear from the minds of people, and the governments of the East and West, there are certain steps that can be taken now.

Proposal for Joint Atomic

Contributions

I therefore make the following proposals: The Governments principally involved, to the extent permitted by elementary prudence, to begin now and continue to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an International Atomic Energy Agency. We would expect that such an agency would be set up under the aegis of the United Nations.

The ratios of contributions, the proce dures and other details would properly be within the scope of the "private conversations" I have referred to earlier.

The United States is prepared to undertake these explorations in good faith. Any partner of the United States acting in the same good faith will find the United States a not unreasonable or ungenerous associate.

control.

The Atomic Energy Agency could be made responsible for the impounding, storage, and protection of the contributed fissionable and other materials. The ingenuity of our scientists will provide special safe conditions under which such a bank of fissionable material can be made essentially immune to surprise seizure.

The more important responsibility of this Atomic Energy Agency would be to devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful activities. A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world. Thus the contributing powers would be dedicating some of their strength to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind.

The United States would be more than willing—it would be proud to take up with others "principally involved" the development of plans whereby such peaceful use of atomic energy would be expedited.

Of those "principally involved" the Soviet Union must, of course, be one. Out of Fear and Into Peace

I would be prepared to submit to the Congress of the United States, and with every expectation of approval, any such plan that would:

First-encourage world-wide investigation into the most effective peacetime uses of fissionable material, and with the certainty that they had all the material needed for the conduct of all experiments that were appropriate;

Second-begin to diminish the potential destructive power of the world's atomic stockpiles;

Third-allow all peoples of all nations to see that, in this enlightened age, the great powers of the earth, both of the East and of the West, are interested in human aspirations first, rather than in building up the armaments of war;

Fourth-open up a new channel for peaceful discussion, and initiate at least a new approach to the many difficult problems that must be solved in both private and public conversations, if the world is to shake off the inertia imposed by fear, and is to make positive progress toward peace.

Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not (Continued on page 111)

Commissioner Brownell Honored

S

OCHOOL OFFICIALS and architects are very much concerned over the possibilities of financing capital outlay expenditures for current and anticipated schoolplant improvements. The public elementary and secondary schools are faced with a backlog of school-plant needs calling for a capital outlay investment of about $13 billion and an anticipated additional need by 1960 of over $14 billion (all in terms of January 1954 construction dollars) to care for enrollment increases and normal replacement.

Finances Limited

Under existing patterns and regulations the possibilities of financing these capital outlay expenditures do not seem promising. Local property valuations and taxes do not keep pace with rising costs; many school districts are exhausting local financing capacities and still have extensive school-plant needs. School officials realize that continued increases in general construction cost levels and ever-growing demands for additional or improved school services may add to current financing difficulties. Some State governments are assisting local districts in capital outlay financing. The lack of adequate financing is serious in most of the States, and all possible means should be used to obtain maximum current and longtime values and services for the money spent on school-plant construction. Cost Analysis

In analyzing and comparing school building costs it is desirable to identify the cost level and/or the unit of measurement used. The first cost level is the contract award cost, which is the sum of the various construction contracts. The second cost level is the total construction cost, which includes in addition to contract awards the cost of professional fees and supervision and the management of the program. In school buildings this often runs to about one

108

tenth of the contract award cost. These first two are often used in comparing building costs. The third cost level is the total capital outlay, which includes, in addition to the total construction costs, other items such as furniture, sites, and administrative costs, and represents the total amount of money that the district must provide for the particular project. Cost comparisons are usually made by using some common units of building measurement such as a square foot (of the gross floor area), or the cost per classroom-if the amount of building overall or gross floor area per classroom is indicated. Recent studies in the Office

show that during the Controlled Materials Program the average contract award cost for new school buildings in the United States during the latter part of 1951 and the early part of 1952 was about $14.53 per square foot and $33,200 per classroom. If interpreted in terms of total capital outlay, the average cost would have been over $40,000 per classroom.

School-plant costs have increased, although less rapidly than other major school costs. Some contributing factors are the general rise in construction costs, the improved lighting and other services now demanded in our schools, administrative changes replacing some small and/or uneconomical units, and curriculum enrichment and teaching method changes that require more building space per pupil than was required in the days of more formalized teaching.

Needs Exceed Means

Parents want adequate and well-adapted school-plant facilities for their children; however, funds are limited. To obtain maximum school plant facilities and services from the limited funds available, schools may find it necessary to effect savings at many points. Various conferences and workshops of school administrators and architects have devoted their attention to

These

possible school-plant economies. conferences have had value, but necessarily could not be conclusive. This article lists or summarizes some of the economies discussed in these meetings but does not attempt to determine the feasibility or value of any such economies as applied to an individual situation. What might be an economy in one situation might not prove so in another. Savings in initial cost may not be ultimate economy since the costs of school. buildings should be measured in terms of the average annual cost during its period of usefulness.

Design and Construction Economies

School officials urge architects to get more space for the money. Designers and contractors have effected some major design and construction economies in school buildings. Numerous new buildings have the first floor at or near grade level with floor slabs on fill. Interior wall surfaces are often of masonry units without plaster. In some schools building heights have been reduced, and in many of these schools the ceiling and roof structures have been combined.

Other structural design and construction pattern economies may merit consideration. Most of them have already been put into effect in some buildings. Some of them would not be feasible in various locations. There is a general tendency to eliminate some ornamentation such as dormers, domes, towers, and belfries. In other cases it is found economical to omit cornices, to delete ornate columns, and to substitute some other roof pattern for high gable roofs with slate covering. Simple building lines with a minimum number of offsets be used in an attempt to reduce wall costs. The omission of basements and the following of ground contours or making use of such contours for special areas often proves economical. Recent studies seem to indicate, for many areas, an economy in erect

may

ing single story buildings particularly where such construction permits use of lighter walls. A few States are experimenting with reduced ceiling heights. Some other construction patterns being considered are the use of open corridors, the omission of parapets, and the omission of utility corridors. Planning readily expandable buildings may be an important factor in ultimate cost. Some contractors reduce on-the-job labor costs by using a maximum amount of prefabricated materials such as millwork and various other component parts. Some contractors indicate that they could assist in effecting certain design economies if called upon to review the drawings and specifications prior to their completion. Boards of education often find that good job supervision brings economical returns. Boards often find it desirable to give attention to the types of contracts awarded in order to effect all desirable safe economies.

Standardization

Questions are often asked about design and construction pattern standardization. The consensus of designers seems to be that total plan uniformity is undesirable but that savings may be effected by using common patterns for the design and construction of certain integral units. The planning of multiple equal dimension bays and the general use of modular unit layouts may simplify construction and save costs. Standard dimensions for millwork are generally more economical. Planning in-the-room storage alcoves, into which can be set movable mill fabricated cases of various designs according to need, reduces on-the-job fabrication. The cases may be moved as desired.

School Plant Planning

struction costs. Even though there are many abuses, designing for multiple use may reduce total construction cost. Shops, laboratories, and homemaking rooms may often be so designed that they are usable for more than one type of specialized activity. Planning some rooms of different sizes makes it possible to care for both large and small classes. Elaborate foyers and entrances may be difficult to justify.

Utilization

School officials often need to give specific attention to the utilization of spaces and pupil stations.

Careful scheduling may

make it possible to reduce the number of rooms required. Room period utilization should be computed as the percentage of available periods per week during which the room is used. Pupil station utilization is computed as the percentage of time each classroom pupil station is occupied. Some school officials plan a high hourly period use of classrooms, then use special areas such as lunchrooms for a few peak over-flow groups. Utilization studies may also give attention to the percentage of the total building gross floor area included in classrooms. Some buildings run as high as 50 percent in regular and special classroom areas and others less than 30.

Refinements

Essentials in one building may be termed refinements in another. When necessary to save, school officials usually look for items they may need to delete as a matter of economy. Such features as intercommunicating telephones, public address systems, television, complete room darkening for audio-visual work, and other similar services, often come up for consideration when the board is trying to save.

As indicated, some economies may be effected by changes in design and construction practices. Others may be effected by improved financing methods. Some may be made by a higher utilization of the plant and a reduction in the demand for space. The answer in school-plant economy prob

School officials understand that there is a limit to the economies that may be effected in construction and that some of the essential savings become the obligation of the educators. Long-range system-wide planning generally proves more effective than "spur of the moment" individual project planning. Careful site selection may facilitate adapta-ably lies in a combination of many of these tion to long-range needs, community serv ices, population trends, and building locations. In some climates use of campus-type plants with separated buildings may merit attention. Limiting special group-use areas such as auditoriums, gymnasiums, and lunchrooms to school needs may reduce con

factors. Even with all the economies it will not be possible to provide all of the buildings needed under present financing patterns. In evaluating any proposed saving in school plant costs it should be measured by its effect on the average annual cost during the life of that particular building.

Educational Efforts

and Educational Needs

(Continued from page 98)

How is it now, half a century or so later? In 1953, the educational effort was at the rate of about $76 per capita. Federal expenditures—including defense-had risen to $467 per capita. The ratio of educational effort to public task, which in 1900 was as one is to two, had fallen, a half century later, to a ratio of one to six.

Perhaps I should pause at this point for a parenthesis, to say for those who may be thinking how much the value of the dollar has depreciated since 1900, that I am aware of that, but for the purposes of this comparison, it makes no difference. For while the dollar was worth probably three times as much in 1900 as in 1953, we are interested only in the relative effort in 1900 and in 1953. The ratio would be the same if we divided the 1953 expenditures by three, or if we multiplied the 1900 expenditures by three.

You have now heard all the statistics that I shall use. The two ratios, the one at the beginning of our rise to the position of the leading great power of the world and, the other ratio a half century later, when we carry the enormous burden abroad and at home-these two ratios show, I submit, that the effort we are now making to educate ourselves has fallen in relation to our needs.

I must now remind you that this disparity between the educational effort and the public task is in fact greater than the figures suggest. For in this half century there has been a momentous change in the structure of American society and it has added greatly to the burden upon the schools.

The responsibility of the schools for edu cating the new generation has become very much more comprehensive than it used to be. Ever so much more is now demanded of the schools. For they are expected to perform many of the educational functions which used to be performed by the family, the settled community, the church, the family business, the family farm, the family trade.

This is a very big subject in itself—much too big for me tonight-except to mention it as a reminder that the comparison between our real educational effort and our

real public need is less favorable than the figures of one as to two in 1900, as against one as to six today. For the school today has a much larger role to play in the whole process of education than it needed to play in the older American society.

Can it be denied that the educational effort is inadequate? I think it cannot be denied. I do not mean that we are doing a little too little. I mean that we are doing much too little. We are entering upon an era which will test to the utmost the capacity of our democracy to cope with the gravest problems of modern times-and on a scale never yet attempted in all the history of the world. We are entering upon this difficult and dangerous period with what I believe we must call a growing deficit in the quantity and the quality of American education.

There is, I believe, compelling proof that we are operating at an educational deficit. It is to be found in many of the controversies within the educational system. I am not myself, of course, a professional educator. But I do some reading about education, and I have been especially interested in the problem of providing education for the men and women who must perform the highest functions in our society-the elucidation and the articulation of its ideals, the advancement of knowledge, the making of high policy in the government, and the leadership of the people. Need for Equality in Education

How are we discussing this problem? Are we, as we ought to be doing, studying what are the subjects and what are the disciplines which are needed for the education of the gifted children for the leadership of the Nation? That is not the main thing we are discussing. We are discussing whether we can afford to educate ou leaders when we have so far to go before we have done what we should do to provide equal opportunities for all people.

Most of the argument-indced the whole issue of whether to address the effort in education to the average of ability or to the higher capacities-derives from the assump tion that we have to make that choice. But why do we have to choose? Why are we not planning to educate everybody as much as everybody can be educated, some much more and some less than others?

This alleged choice is forced upon us only because our whole educational effort

is too small. If we were not operating at a deficit level, our working ideal would be the fullest opportunity for all-each child according to its capacity. It is the deficit. in our educational effort which compels us to deny to the children fitted for the leadership of the Nation the opportunity to become educated for that task.

New Plateau in Education

as

So we have come to the point, I would contend, where we must lift ourselves promptly as we can to a new and much higher level of interest, of attention, of hard work, of care, of concern, of expenditure, and of dedication to the education of the American people.

We have to do in the educational system something very like what we have done in the military establishment during the past 15 years. We have to make a breakthrough to a radically higher and broader conception of what is needed and of what can be done. Our educational effort today, what we think we can afford, what we think we can do, how we feel entitled to treat our schools and our teachers-all of that is still in approximately the same position as was the military effort of this country before Pearl Harbor.

In 1940 our armed forces were still at a level designed for a policy of isolation in this hemisphere and of neutrality in any war across the two oceans. Today, the military establishment has been raised to a different and higher plateau, and the effort that goes into it is enormously greater than it was in 1940.

Our educational effort, on the other hand. has not yet been raised to the plateau of the age we live in. I am not saying, of course, that we should spend 40 billions on education because we spend about that much on defense. I am saying that we must make the same order of radical change in our attitude towards education as we have made in our attitude towards defense.

We must measure our educational effort as we do our military effort. That is to say, we must measure it not by what it would be easy and convenient to do, but by what it is necessary to do in order that the nation may survive and flourish. We have learned that we are quite rich enough to defend ourselves, whatever the cost. We must now learn that we are quite rich enough to educate ourselves as we need to be educated.

There is an enormous margin of luxury in this country against which we can draw for our vital needs. We take that for granted when we think of the national defense. From the tragedies and the bitter experience of being involved in wars for which we were inadequately prepared, we have acquired the will to defend ourselves. And, having done that, having acquired the will, we have found the way. We know how to find the dollars that are needed to defend ourselves, even if we are to do without something else that is less vitally important.

In education we have not yet acquired that kind of will. But we need to acquire it, and we have no time to lose. We must acquire it in this decade. For if, in the crucial years which are coming, our people remain as unprepared as they are for their responsibilities and their mission, they may not be equal to the challenge, and if they do not succeed, they may never have a second chance in order to try again.

Teacher Shortage

(Continued from page 100)

world, the great advances that are occurring have come mainly from money spent on research and development of new and better products, and better ways of distributing them. In the business world, we take progress as a matter of course. We expect productivity to improve about 3 percent each year, which is the great underlying statistic about why our economy is continuing to grow and better each year. get

I think we need more of this invention and development in the field of education. Let me give you just one example:

One of the most cherished ideas in the whole field of education is the notion that the smaller the number of pupils in a class, the better the quality of instruction will be. When I tried to find the facts. behind why this is so, I must confess that I could not obtain any really objective evidence. I then went to Dr. Paul Mort of Columbia University, one of the most skilled educational researchers in the country. He told me that no real proof of this educational maxim actually exists. Yet I remember that from my own teaching days I have always carried the idea that a class should be no larger than I or any other teacher could get to know all the pupils personally, what their problems are,